|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » How is Rock Art aged? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:42
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: bladup wrote: over to Nigel and Harryshill for your defence..... You mistake agreeing with him with defending him, just as you mistake disagreeing with you as an attack. Here's something you may take as an attack on you, but it isn't, it's an expression of my opinion (that your claims aren't well-founded): You said earlier "the problem is a lot of the symbols have two or more meanings" but don't you see, if that's the case your observations and conclusions become highly suspect to say the least. A triangle means a hill, a spring and a rock and another triangle means that too. So here is a "map" with two triangles, and lo, over there is a tree and a spring. Proved! (Not). That's how things were in the neolithic, everything had more than one meaning, take a look at the oldest languages and you'll see this is true, keep thinking i know nothing and over time i'll make people realise that you know nothing yourself beyond your books, your lack of knowledge is embarrassing, all your books must be outdated tiompans little helper.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:44
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: When you say often, how often is that. More often than not?. It sounds like you are saying that the art if often dictated by the canvas? With in parameters? Difficult to put a figure on it and there is a level of subjectivity . Yes , the art is often dicated by the canvas . e.g. sometimes the markings will follow outer edge of the canvas , cracks will used to connect motifs just as man made grooves connect motifs . The motifs follow the shape of the stone rather than being imposed on the "flat bit in the middle " etc . It's 's as if the engraver is thinking more like a sculptor than a draughtsman .
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:46
|
||
|
bladup wrote: The rock art and monuments themselves are evidence enough for me as to what substances the natives were drinking before the beer and mead came [and after], and the first alcohol may well have started in the classic beaker, but people still had drinking vessels before then, what do you think was in them ritually? as normally it would be dandelion tea or something, but not for ritual, you could argue that ALL ritual comes originally from hallucinogens, like Evergreen said a lack of evidence doesn't mean it wasn't happening, and how can anybody know or find anything out if they're not allowed [which you don't] to speculate, it's all really really sad - this prove it or it isn't true lark, why not have it this way - you fucking prove it isn't true - i bet you can't [and we all know why!!!]. Wish I hadn't started this thread now. Where have those days gone when we discussed things sensibly and without being offensive if we differed in views :-(
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:50
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: Not just water but a map of everything [inc energies] in their landscapes [the settlements with it's huts inside are some of the easiest to spot] and i know though practical experience some rock art is just marking the energy within the stone itself and the zig zags and chevrons you see in chambered cairns are also what people saw under altered states, like i always say if you look when you have had whats in their beakers [before the beer and mead] then you'd understand the rock art in a way that brings you very close to the ancesters motives, i assure you of that, once you've had what they've had [the rock art proves this] at the places they did - the great stone circles and chambered cairns it all makes a lot more sense. Is there a particular marked rock that you know that would prove your claim Paul? Zig zags , chevrons spirals all the important motifs found in passage grave engravings are also found in childrens drawings , there is no suggestion that the children were influenced by experiences from ASC 's these motifs are the common currency of the humans everywhere . There is no evidence for any use of anything hallucinogenic from any beakers or pottery found in Neolthic or Bronze Age Britain or Ireland . You might imagine if the engravers had taken anthing hallucinogenic and allowed it to influnece their art it would be much more varied and not nearly so repetitive and conservative . Yes the patterns are deep rooted in our brains, kids may draw them, migraines [and other stuff] can also cause people to see them but hallucinogens are by far and away the most common and clear way to see these patterns [in the mind, in the landscape and on/in the rocks], and by now you should know that we "know and learn" things in very different ways, i have nothing to prove to you and your books, as your lack of knowledge on this subject you hold so dear is amazing to me, but you keep living in your little bubble where you know everything and i know nothing [and everyone else to be honest], i'm someone you could learn a little off but all you do is show why your stuck where you are on the subject, sorry Sanctuary but i'm not going round and round with this small minded fool again, it's sad as i think i could have a great chat about this with you and the other open minded people on here, but this "know it all" is determined to make sure it doesn't happen as we would like it to, it's odd that isn't it? maybe it's because people might realise he knows fuck all on the subject really, whats mental is the fact that he puts down things he can't prove are wrong even though the madman thinks he is actually doing just that [all the bloody time]. Sanctuary even asked you "So have you not 'moved on' in your understanding of them at all then George or are you still evaluating?" it's a good point because it looks like you just want us all to think you know about them [you only know where to find some, as we all do] but when it comes to answers you don't have anything that makes sense but are very very quick to rubbish others [with no proof that their wrong at all], it's all a very unfunny joke, and over to Nigel and Harryshill for your defence.......like i said it's all a very unfunny joke. There is obviously a clash or misunderstanding of beliefs here and I don't wish to take sides as I know little of the subject as is patently obvious. I don't feel George is rubbishing you Paul or you totally wrong in your beliefs either. We often see things in different ways and none more so when out of your skull, but is this how one is supposed to understand these things... I seriously doubt it. Much of the art would have taken weeks and weeks to create, if not months with the tools at their disposal at the time, so it was obviously a serious matter (one supposes). I think George and any peers he has in this area show great patience in forming opinions that are going to satisfy rational people and rightly look for the answer without having to resort to drug enduced explanations. To be taken seriously in any matter of this type one is expected to be scientific in their approach to it and not look for 'out of body' experiences to explain it away. With my very limited knowledge of the subject I have often thought that cupmarks on stones 'may' have been maps of a given area but have never followed it up seriously not being in 'art country', that's why I asked you if you had a good example of this and could prove it! If allowed and "out of your skull" implies something that just isn't true, your more open with it, more tuned into nature, the out of your skull bit is put out there by people who can't handle things [in their day to day lives] or have an agenda against it [like the church and goverment], and some of the rock art would be quicker to do than you think, and a lot of the bigger panals were done over a long period of time [things going over the top of clearly older ones prove this].
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:53
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: bladup wrote: Not just water but a map of everything [inc energies] in their landscapes [the settlements with it's huts inside are some of the easiest to spot] and i know though practical experience some rock art is just marking the energy within the stone itself and the zig zags and chevrons you see in chambered cairns are also what people saw under altered states, like i always say if you look when you have had whats in their beakers [before the beer and mead] then you'd understand the rock art in a way that brings you very close to the ancesters motives, i assure you of that, once you've had what they've had [the rock art proves this] at the places they did - the great stone circles and chambered cairns it all makes a lot more sense. Is there a particular marked rock that you know that would prove your claim Paul? Zig zags , chevrons spirals all the important motifs found in passage grave engravings are also found in childrens drawings , there is no suggestion that the children were influenced by experiences from ASC 's these motifs are the common currency of the humans everywhere . There is no evidence for any use of anything hallucinogenic from any beakers or pottery found in Neolthic or Bronze Age Britain or Ireland . You might imagine if the engravers had taken anthing hallucinogenic and allowed it to influnece their art it would be much more varied and not nearly so repetitive and conservative . Yes the patterns are deep rooted in our brains, kids may draw them, migraines [and other stuff] can also cause people to see them but hallucinogens are by far and away the most common and clear way to see these patterns [in the mind, in the landscape and on/in the rocks], and by now you should know that we "know and learn" things in very different ways, i have nothing to prove to you and your books, as your lack of knowledge on this subject you hold so dear is amazing to me, but you keep living in your little bubble where you know everything and i know nothing [and everyone else to be honest], i'm someone you could learn a little off but all you do is show why your stuck where you are on the subject, sorry Sanctuary but i'm not going round and round with this small minded fool again, it's sad as i think i could have a great chat about this with you and the other open minded people on here, but this "know it all" is determined to make sure it doesn't happen as we would like it to, it's odd that isn't it? maybe it's because people might realise he knows fuck all on the subject really, whats mental is the fact that he puts down things he can't prove are wrong even though the madman thinks he is actually doing just that [all the bloody time]. Sanctuary even asked you "So have you not 'moved on' in your understanding of them at all then George or are you still evaluating?" it's a good point because it looks like you just want us all to think you know about them [you only know where to find some, as we all do] but when it comes to answers you don't have anything that makes sense but are very very quick to rubbish others [with no proof that their wrong at all], it's all a very unfunny joke, and over to Nigel and Harryshill for your defence.......like i said it's all a very unfunny joke. LOL , usually it takes a few more posts before the paranoia kicks in the abuse starts and anything approaching a discusion follows the toys out of the pram . Not one response to any of the points .No need for migraines , hallucinogens , drumming , sleep deprivation ,these motifs are part of our biological inhertance . Do you think the children who drew these motifs had done so as a result of these effects ? No mention of the the lack of evidence for anything hallucinogenic from any beakers or pottery found in Neolthic or how ingestion of hallucinogens might actually have an effect on the engravers to come up with something a bit more interesting and less conservative and repetitive . Not that there was any likelihood of an argument in the first place but the old adage of lack of content being in direct proportion to volume of abuse applies as ever . You really know so little about this, and it's quite funny that you can't even see it.
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:54
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: No mention of the the lack of evidence for anything hallucinogenic from any beakers or pottery found in Neolthic Just a small point, and its obviously GW, but even though Balfarg is somewhat 'out on its own', just because it has yet to be found elsewhere, doesnt mean it wasn't happening more widely. Balfarg was shown not to be an example years ago . So there is no evidence . It's odd that the myth about it has hung about so long yet it didn't take long to point out the original study was flawed . Not to be an exmaple of what? Maybe I have misunderstood but I assumed that you were talking about evidence for hallucinigens on pottery . No, you understood correctly, I just hadn't read about the re-analysis. Dear oh dear, marks off for me! I'm going back again now.. Having fully read the paper, it is not the case that Balfarg has been shown not to be an example at all, more that the attempted replication did not prove it. "It is possible that the residue differed markedly in pollen and macrofossil content across the sherd and this explanation may account for the small cache of henbane seeds identified in the first study (Moffat 1993)." It seems there is the possibility that the first study correctly identified black henbane, but the 2nd could not confirm it. Fair?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:57
|
||
|
bladup wrote: The rock art and monuments themselves are evidence enough for me as to what substances the natives were drinking before the beer and mead came [and after], and the first alcohol may well have started in the classic beaker, but people still had drinking vessels before then, what do you think was in them ritually? as normally it would be dandelion tea or something, but not for ritual, you could argue that ALL ritual comes originally from hallucinogens, like Evergreen said a lack of evidence doesn't mean it wasn't happening, and how can anybody know or find anything out if they're not allowed [which you don't] to speculate, it's all really really sad - this prove it or it isn't true lark, why not have it this way - you fucking prove it isn't true - i bet you can't [and we all know why!!!]. It obviously doesn't take much evidence to convince you . You can argue anything you like but without evidence you won't get very far . Some people have little interest in a finding out what actually happened in the past , they prefer to use it as a blank template to impose their dreams rather than face the facts , whether it's the British Empire or Stonehenge . You believed that nonsense about the Balfarg sherd because it suited your beliefs and dreams why not face up to the facts . Maybe you should read what Evergreen said after that . Investigate proving negatives . I can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 11:59
|
||
You totally missed the point of what I said.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 12:07
|
||
I think it should be made clear there is only one person being repeatedly, crudely offensive on this thread Roy. Let us not blame the forum.
|
|||
|
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 17, 2012, 12:09
|
||
|
Evergreen Dazed wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: Evergreen Dazed wrote: tiompan wrote: No mention of the the lack of evidence for anything hallucinogenic from any beakers or pottery found in Neolthic Just a small point, and its obviously GW, but even though Balfarg is somewhat 'out on its own', just because it has yet to be found elsewhere, doesnt mean it wasn't happening more widely. Balfarg was shown not to be an example years ago . So there is no evidence . It's odd that the myth about it has hung about so long yet it didn't take long to point out the original study was flawed . Not to be an exmaple of what? Maybe I have misunderstood but I assumed that you were talking about evidence for hallucinigens on pottery . No, you understood correctly, I just hadn't read about the re-analysis. Dear oh dear, marks off for me! I'm going back again now.. Having fully read the paper, it is not the case that Balfarg has been shown not to be an example at all, more that the attempted replication did not prove it. "It is possible that the residue differed markedly in pollen and macrofossil content across the sherd and this explanation may account for the small cache of henbane seeds identified in the first study (Moffat 1993)." It seems there is the possibility that the first study correctly identified black henbane, but the 2nd could not confirm it. Fair? Not if it doesn't match what he's saying...
|
| Pages: 42 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
